[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I am not against the creed of “From each according to their ability.”[/quote]
In your recent readings in the founders you found this to be among the self evident truths they espoused and hoped would create a lasting free and prosperous society?
Or did you happen to get the impression that for the most part they would be deeply grieved and horrified with what were doing with what they left us?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
you’ve consented to live under the law of the land.[/quote]
When?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Somewhere between providing for the common defense[/quote]
Defense of who and from what?
Defense of our government from other governments only. Defense is only necessary because government is evil. National defense is not necessary though.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Somewhere between providing for the common defense
Defense of who and from what?
Defense of our government from other governments only. Defense is only necessary because government is evil. National defense is not necessary though.[/quote]
You make a good point…it is an illusion.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
Nonsense - governments protect natural rights because otherwise, there is little systematic way to recognize and enforce rights.
[/quote]
You ignore centuries of human history where people lived without government. There was not chaos, murder or gangsterism.
I agree and we don’t need the state to tell us this.
You know next to nothing about anarchism. Your knowledge of it is what you picked up on tv.
This is like voting for the “lesser of two evils” and it makes no sense. When a center of power (the state) enforces its will by force or coercion it is not legitimate and it is immoral. You can settle for “better than the rest”, but I won’t.
I would rather take the chance living in “anarchic stupidity”, since I can govern myself, than to live in a corrupt, illegitimate state that can only maintain power by the barrel of a gun.
And once again, you know little about anarchism and voluntary societies.
Spoken like an individual within the indoctrinated mob
[quote]
Centuries of Western history proves this.
Incorrect. [/quote]
Read a book.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If you were made of the same principles of which you profess, you wouldn’t consent to pay a thin dime to the government and would go out in a blaze of glory “defendin’ muh natural rights from the gummint”.
[/quote]
And then spend a lengthy prison sentence or worse get gun down by then Feds in one’s own home?
The hope is that people wake the fuck up and realize they can govern themselves.
I don’t think anyone wants to use violence to overthrow the government. They will have bigger guns and the result will be Ruby Ridge or Waco. I’m sure in both instances you were happy at the outcome.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We freely rejected your idiotic approach to society and instituted a government.
[/quote]
No, we did not.
Governments are almost always instituted by force, hence their illegitimacy.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
When?[/quote]
You mean you don’t avail yourself of anything related to the government and you don’t participate in elections?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
When?
You mean you don’t avail yourself of anything related to the government and you don’t participate in elections?[/quote]
Unfortunately, I don’t have a choice in regard to what I get to participate in and there is where the problem lies. Government forces its monopolization of authority on everyone.
If it did not do this it could not rightly be called a government and then we would be arguing over nothing.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
You ignore centuries of human history where people lived without government. There was not chaos, murder or gangsterism. [/quote]
Awesome - so name one society that fits the above category that simultaneously permits you the rights of life, liberty, conscience, and property. Can’t wait for your answer.
The state doesn’t tell you - it protects existing ones that are pre-political. Moreover, you say you believe in rights, but like Lifticus, you have never articulated as basis for the existence of rights, i.e., a framework of claims over other men that exist regardless of preference.
As is, you are still stuck at square one.
[quote]Without a government, your ability to enforce your rights is only as good as your ability to measure up against the other guy denying them - which, predictably, makes for a pretty disordered and awful existence predicated on little more than violence and gangsterism.
You know next to nothing about anarchism. Your knowledge of it is what you picked up on tv.[/quote]
I left my portion in the quote to highlight that you did not provide a response or a rebuttal, you merely accused me of not knowing “nuthin’ bout anarchism”.
I know enough to dismiss in thirty seconds flat - I know enough to know that humans are incompatible with the naive utopia of Anarchism, and as such, conceptually it has never been taken seriously.
Moreover, this might be the dumbest thing you have written: Your knowledge of it is what you picked up on tv. Where on “tv” is there something about Anarchism? A sit-com I am missing? A Discovery Channel special?
Do tell.
That is exactly what it is, because humans don’t have it in them to create earthly paradises. Moreover, you don’t refute the point that your precious Anarchism isn’t the lesser of the evils - square one again.
Categorically wrong - it can be immoral for the state to exercise its will by force, but it isn’t categorically so. It is legitimate if we consent for those instititions to have a monopoly on force to enforce rights.
And, hilariously, you say you won’t “settle for ‘better than the rest’”…but you will settle for something worse than the best available?
You’re really selling me on this Anarchism stuff - “maybe it sucks worse than the other alternatives, but I simply won’t settle for the best one available!”.
You wouldn’t last very long, and someone would still be waving a gun in your face.
Again, I know enough not to take it seriously. That is all I need to know because that is the right answer, your juvenile fantasies of a manufactured utopia aside.
Of course, Dustin - I’m just a product of the “indoctrinated mob”, just like the Founding Fathers and the thinkers of the Enlightenment.
Now I remember why I don’t take you seriously.
EDIT: changed “is” to “isn’t” (underlined)
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Unfortunately, I don’t have a choice in regard to what I get to participate in and there is where the problem lies. Government forces its monopolization of authority on everyone.[/quote]
Sure you do. Go off the grid. Get some land, akin to the Amish. You are a man of unbending principle on this - if your natural rights are continually being violated, why yield so easily?
Or, in the alternative, move to where humans are living in a state of anarchy where you have all the rights of life, liberty, conscience, and property secured.
Such a place sounds great, and solves all earthly ills, so it must exist somewhere, no doubt. Can’t you move there?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Dustin wrote:
You ignore centuries of human history where people lived without government. There was not chaos, murder or gangsterism.
Awesome - so name one society that fits the above category that simultaneously permits you the rights of life, liberty, conscience, and property. Can’t wait for your answer.
[/quote]
You are aware that people lived in cooperation with each other before government ever existed? Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Amish and Hutterite communities, by and large, govern themselves and have very little government impeding in there lives. They don’t slaughter each other and they understand each others basic rights.
The only “rights” the government ultimately protects are those of the individuals who run the government.
This is why I say you are ignorant regarding anarchism. If I live in a community of like minded individuals (anarchist/voluntary within a true free market) that understand basic human rights, why would they magically disappear? Rights are not granted by a government. I have articulated a basis for their existence because we are born with them whether government exists or not. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Negative, see above. This is probably the third time I have explained this, you just choose to ignore it.
I have, countless times. See my previous statement. All you have countered with is “government didn’t give those rights to you so therefore they don’t exist in an anarchist state”. How much more of a response would you like?
People much smarter than you, I know that is hard for you to fathom, have written books on the matter. It is taken seriously.
As opposed to all the statist drivel you have produced. I am referring to popular culture’s inacurate stereotype that anarchism is chaotic and rights cease to exist.
You don’t know that they don’t have it them. It’s hard to do what you want with the threat of an anvil being dropped on your head for stepping out of line.
I have said already that I would rather live in “anarchic stupidity” (using your phrase) because I can govern myself. This would be the perfect scenario and hardly the lesser of two evils. You read and comprehend what you want and when it is convenient.
The state does exercise its will by force on a daily basis. Are we living in the same country? I never consented for this and I’m positive I’m not the only one that hasn’t either.
It (the government) isn’t legitimate because it can’t justify this use of force. That is the bottom line and is a fact you and other statists can’t refute. There have only been rare instances in which the state could justify itself.
Anarchist or voluntary societies would be far superior to what is available.
You, in your warped statist mindset, think anarchism is wrong because your precious government isn’t around to tell you what to do.
The topic has been written about long before you and I where born. It has also been attempted when the conditions where right. The idea is juvenile in your mind only.
Are you even in favor of smaller government?
The Founders would be horrified at what the (your) American government has become. They, aside from bastards like Hamilton, where closer to minarchists/anarchists than this police state we live in. You’re a crazy neo-con comparing your political beliefs to the Founders. Probably the dumbest thing you have ever said.
Your also the guy who still thinks it was the right decision to invade Iraq. Talk about indoctrinated. Who in their right mind still believes that?
Good, we are on the same page. I don’t take you seriously either.
Dunder, you’re not even quick enough to realize the rights that matter to you are provided by the market only. Government does not guarantee you the right to freely express your opinion on this site, for example.
Regardless of the existence of government the owners of this forum can do with their property what they please.
You have been corrected for the last time.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So a robber who uses a gun and forces someone’s property from them is not stealing since the person being robbed from must consent or possibly die?
Coercion isn’t consent. A robber has no right to your property - contractual, natural, or otherwise.
I believe my life is my own and not yours or anyone else’s.
Correct - you believe it. By your own lights, no one is is obligated to believe it if they don’t want to.
Neither god nor the state are necessary to maintain the rights to one’s life but rather an ability and willingness to stand up to people like you and defend them.
Horseshit - come April 15th, you’ll be paying the taxes on the “fuckloads of money” you boast about.
If you were made of the same principles of which you profess, you wouldn’t consent to pay a thin dime to the government and would go out in a blaze of glory “defendin’ muh natural rights from the gummint”.
No, instead we’ll get a timely filing of the appropriate tax form by Lifticus, followed shortly by some mind-numbing jeremiad channeling your newest favorite coffeehouse anrachist - with the hyopcrisy completely lost on you.
Fact is, in your bizarre world - which Mankind thankfully rejected years ago - there would be no rule except the rule of naked power and talk of “rights” would get nothing but chortles from the man with biggest whip. And, in such a world, you’d be the first one eaten.
Oh, and taxation still isn’t theft.[/quote]
What a post.
Well done man.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So a robber who uses a gun and forces someone’s property from them is not stealing since the person being robbed from must consent or possibly die?
Coercion isn’t consent. A robber has no right to your property - contractual, natural, or otherwise.
I believe my life is my own and not yours or anyone else’s.
Correct - you believe it. By your own lights, no one is is obligated to believe it if they don’t want to.
Neither god nor the state are necessary to maintain the rights to one’s life but rather an ability and willingness to stand up to people like you and defend them.
Horseshit - come April 15th, you’ll be paying the taxes on the “fuckloads of money” you boast about.
If you were made of the same principles of which you profess, you wouldn’t consent to pay a thin dime to the government and would go out in a blaze of glory “defendin’ muh natural rights from the gummint”.
No, instead we’ll get a timely filing of the appropriate tax form by Lifticus, followed shortly by some mind-numbing jeremiad channeling your newest favorite coffeehouse anrachist - with the hyopcrisy completely lost on you.
Fact is, in your bizarre world - which Mankind thankfully rejected years ago - there would be no rule except the rule of naked power and talk of “rights” would get nothing but chortles from the man with biggest whip. And, in such a world, you’d be the first one eaten.
Oh, and taxation still isn’t theft.
What a post.
Well done man.[/quote]
I liked it too. A healthy sceptisism towards the purported goodness of man.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
You are aware that people lived in cooperation with each other before government ever existed? Why is this so hard for you to understand?
Amish and Hutterite communities, by and large, govern themselves and have very little government impeding in there lives. They don’t slaughter each other and they understand each others basic rights.[/quote]
These are your examples? Both the Amish and Hutterite have strict moral, social and economic codes and they visit harsh punishment on people who stray from the rules…and this is your example of a “voluntary society” that affords you all your rights of life, liberty, property and conscience?
Idiocy. You say they “have very little government impeding in there[sic] lives” - no, they have very little of non-Amish government impeding in their lives. They, however, have plenty of their own rules they expect their people to obey, and if you don’t obey, there are consequences…just like non-Amish society, as it turns out
No, you haven’t - if you are “born” with them, that means they are inherent, that they are natural. In my original post, I commented that neither Lifticus nor any other atheist anarchist has articulated any basis for “natural” rights. And they still haven’t.
You simply state that they exist and assume that assertion to be true - you haven’t established a reason for a framework of rights to exist in a godless anarchy.
Can you? Instead of constantly claiming you did, try actually doing it.
Incorrect - see above.
How about a response? If government doesn’t give you those natural rights, then on what basis do you have them? You haven’t provided any answer to this question.
A worthless, throwaway claim - and, no, Anarchism is not taken seriously outside of a small, ignorant sect of wannabe radicals who are incredibly naive about human nature.
Another throwaway line, as I am not a “statist” - but while I am no diviner of what pop culture has to say about much of anything (since I participate very little in pop culture), I don’t think pop culture much gives a damn about Anarchism or its goofball adherents.
Sure I do - what phenomenon in all of recorded history gives you the impression that Humans would live peacefully and in complete harmony if only given the choice to?
What do you think happens in your precious Amish community if you “step out of line”?
No, it wouldn’t be perfect, because you are assuming that everyone else would leave you alone and never violate your rights - another of your foolishly naive assumptions.
Who said it didn’t? I said the government’s use of force was not categorically unjust - sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn’t. Read more carefully.
So, if you and I had a contract, and I breached the contract, you wouldn’t sue me in a court of law? And assuming you would and won a judgment against me, you wouldn’t allow the state to collect that judgment on your behalf when I reffused to comply after breaching the contract?
Sure it can - and your painfully hollow triumphalism aside, the easiest answer is that we, as a people, freely decide to institute government with the use of force.
That said, smarter people than you have written that the use of force by the government is justified - using your own standard, that should be enough for you.
No, it wouldn’t, unless you think that a world run by the mafia is “far superior to what is available”.
Yet another childish throwaway line - I am not a “statist” nor do I advocate or want a government to “tell me what to do”.
That is the problem with looneytarian anarchists like yourself - you think there exists “anarchists” and “statists” and no one else, and you foist strawmen arguments on folks who fit neither category because, due to your limitations, you don’t have any canned responses to those that don’t fit your bizarrely simplistic paradigm.
It gets old fast, and it is transparent.
“Attempted”? If this awesome system delivers up maximum happiness and social efficiency, why was it only “attempted” but isn’t still around - i.e., it “failed”? What happened to these “attempts”?
Yes, and that has nothing to do with Anarchism. Nothing at all.
I’ll do my best to unpack your nonsense:
The Founders would be horrified at what the modern American state has become. This has nothing to with Anarchism, because they weren’t Anarchists, or even close.
I never defended the modern state, so another strawman on your part (I’ve lost count).
Hamilton was a Founder, and was instrumental in the formation of the Constitution. You don’t have to agree with his vision of government - but his vision was part of what birthed the Republic.
The Founders weren’t Anarchists or Minarchists, and my vision of government is far closer to theirs than is the ideology you profess.
Don’t like Hamilton? No problem, I direct you to James Madison, the Father of the Constitution:
What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary.
Now, if you’re right, then Madison is wrong. Everything you have spouted off about “no need for gummint” puts you at odds with every single Founding Father and influential thinker that contributed to the Founding.
Next time, pay attention in history class - it’d save you both time and embarrassment.
I’ll do my best to find a way to sleep at night.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Dunder, you’re not even quick enough to realize the rights that matter to you are provided by the market only. [/quote]
No, they aren’t, but assuming you are right, there would be only Contractual Rights, and not Natural Rights - which contradict your claims that Natural Rights exist. You can’t seem to make any coherent sense, can you?
Nope, Contract does.
Not exactly - they can’t allow pictures of child pornography without consequence, even if they wanted to.
What does any of this have to do with anything being discussed? Correct - nothing.
Impossible - you haven’t even corrected me for the first time.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A positively brilliant response to this Dustin guy[/quote]
Bravo man. Really. On all counts with this one.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< I am not against the creed of “From each according to their ability.”
In your recent readings in the founders you found this to be among the self evident truths they espoused and hoped would create a lasting free and prosperous society?
Or did you happen to get the impression that for the most part they would be deeply grieved and horrified with what were doing with what they left us?[/quote]
I am far from obsessed with the Founding Fathers and what they would have wanted. They are long dead, and don’t have to deal with any of this anymore. I also do not believe that this country must be saddled with the responsibility of strictly adhering to ideas of long dead men, especially if they find a better way to do it.
And I believe that certain ones (like Paine) would have agreed completely. I don’t know if that’s enough for you, or if I need like, a quorum of founders to have said something in order to make it valid.